Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Santillan

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division

March 23, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
JOE RAMON SANTILLAN, Defendant.

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

          C.J. Williams Chief United States Magistrate Judge Northern District of Iowa

         On March 23, 2018, the above-named defendant Joe Ramon Santillan, by consent (Doc. 33), appeared before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11, and entered a conditional plea of guilty to Counts One and Four of the Indictment (Doc. 2). After cautioning and examining defendant under oath concerning each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, the Court determined that the guilty pleas were knowledgeable and voluntary, and the offenses charged were supported by an independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offenses. The Court therefore RECOMMENDS that the pleas of guilty be accepted and defendant be adjudged guilty.

         At the commencement of the Rule 11 proceeding, defendant was placed under oath and advised that if defendant answered any questions falsely, defendant could be prosecuted for perjury or for making a false statement. Defendant also was advised that in any such prosecution, the Government could use against defendant any statements made under oath.

         The Court asked a number of questions to ensure defendant's mental capacity to enter a plea. Defendant stated defendant's full name, age, and extent of schooling. The Court inquired into defendant's history of mental illness and addiction to narcotic drugs.

         The Court further inquired into whether defendant was under the influence of any drug, medication, or alcoholic beverage at the time of the plea hearing. From this inquiry, the Court determined that defendant was not suffering from any mental disability that would impair defendant's ability to make knowing, intelligent, and voluntary pleas of guilty to the charges.

         Defendant acknowledged that defendant had received a copy of the Indictment, and had fully discussed these charges with defendant's counsel.

         The Court determined that defendant was pleading guilty under a plea agreement with the Government. After confirming that a copy of the written plea agreement was in front of defendant and defendant's counsel, the Court determined that defendant understood the terms of the plea agreement. The Court summarized the plea agreement, and made certain defendant understood its terms.

         The Court explained to defendant that because the plea agreement provided for dismissal of charges, if defendant pleaded guilty, a presentence report would be prepared and a district judge would consider whether or not to accept the plea agreement. If the district judge decided to reject the plea agreement, then defendant would have an opportunity to withdraw the pleas of guilty and change them to not guilty.

         Defendant was advised also that after the pleas were accepted, defendant would have no right to withdraw the pleas at a later date, even if the sentence imposed was different from what defendant or defendant's counsel anticipated.

         The Court summarized the charges against defendant, and listed the elements of the crime. The Court determined that defendant understood each and every element of the crime, and defendant's counsel confirmed that defendant understood each and every element of the crime charged.

         The Court elicited a full and complete factual basis for all elements of the crimes charged in each Count of the Indictment to which defendant was pleading guilty.

         The Court advised defendant of the consequences of each plea, including the maximum fine, the maximum term of imprisonment, the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment, and term of supervised release.

         With respect to Count One (1), defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $20, 000, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is life; the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is twenty (20) years; the maximum period of supervised release is life; and the minimum period of supervised release is ten (10) years.

         With respect to Count Four (4), defendant was advised that the maximum fine is $250, 000; the maximum term of imprisonment is life; the mandatory minimum term of imprisonment is five (5) years; and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.